Transcript Xiu Chen - PeerToPeerNetworks_CathyChen

Peer to Peer Networks
By Cathy Chen
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Outline





What is P2P Network?
Overlay Network centralization
•
•
•
Purely Decentralized Architectures
Partially Centralized Architectures
Hybrid Decentralized Architectures
Network Structure
•
•
Unstructured
Structured
Unstructured Architectures
•
•
•
Hybrid Decentralized
Purely Decentralized
Partially Centralized
Structured Architectures
•
•
•
•
Freenet - A Loosely Structured System
Chord
Can (Content Addressable Network)
Tapestry
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
What is P2P Network?



A distributed network composed of a large
number of distributed, heterogeneous,
autonomous, and highly dynamic peers in
which participants share a part of their own
resources such as processing power, storage
capacity, software, and file contents.
The participants in the P2P network can act as
a server and a client at the same time.
They are accessible by other nodes directly,
without passing intermediary entities.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
P2P Network
Node
Node
Internet
Node
Node
Node
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Node
Peer-to-peer Architectures


Although in purest form peer-to-peer overlay
networks are supposed to be totally
decentralized, in practice this is not always
true, and systems with various degrees of
centralization are encountered.
They are identified into the following three
categories:
•
•
•
Purely Decentralized architectures
Hybrid decentralized architectures
Partially Centralized architectures
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Purely Decentralized
Architectures



All nodes in the networks perform
exactly the same tasks, acting both as
servers and clients
No central coordination of their activities
Ex.
• Gnutella
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Purely Decentralized
Architectures
S1F1.dat
S1F2.dat
S1F3.dat
S2F1.dat
S2F2.dat
S2F3.dat
S3F1.dat
S3F2.dat
S3F3.dat
S4F1.dat
S4F2.dat
S4F3.dat
S2f1.dat
S2f1.dat
S2f1.dat
S3F1.dat
S3F2.dat
S3F3.dat
Server2
Server3
S1F1.dat
S1F2.dat
S1F3.dat
S4F1.dat
S4F2.dat
S4F3.dat
Server1
Files available before
Server5 joined
Server4
S5F1.dat
S5F2.txt
S5F3.dat
Server5
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
joining the network
S1F1.dat
S1F2.dat
S1F3.dat
S2F1.dat
S2F2.dat
S2F3.dat
S3F1.dat
S3F2.dat
S3F3.dat
S4F1.dat
S4F2.dat
S4F3.dat
S5F1.dat
S5F2.dat
S5F3.dat
Files available after
Server5 joined
Gnutella : Pure Decentralized
System




peer-to-peer networking: applications connect to peer
applications
focus: decentralized method of searching for files
each application instance serves to:
•
•
•
store selected files
route queries (file searches) from and to its neighboring peers
respond to queries (serve file) if file stored locally
How it works:
Searching by flooding:
•
•
•
•
If you don’t have the file you want, query 7 of your partners.
If they don’t have it, they contact 7 of their partners, for a maximum
hop count of 10.
Requests are flooded, but there is no tree structure.
No looping but packets may be received twice.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Advantages and Disadvantages
of Purely Decentralized Systems

Advantages
• Inherently fault-tolerant, since there is no central
•

point of failure and the loss of a peer or even a
number of peers can easily be compensated.
Have a greater degree of autonomous control
over their data and resources
Disadvantages
• Slow discovery time
• No guarantee about quality of services
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Hybrid Decentralized
Architectures


A central directory server maintains an
index of the metadata for all files in the
network and a table of registered user
connection information (IP address,
connection bandwidth, et.)
Each client who wish to join the network
has to contact the central server and
report the files it maintains
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Hybrid Decentralized
Architectures


QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.


CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Client computers send
requests for files to the
server.
The server searches for
matches in its index,
returning a list of users that
hold the matching file.
The user then opens direct
connections with one or
more of the peers that hold
the requested file, and
downloads it
Ex. Napster
Napster




Application-level, client-server protocol over point topoint TCP, centralized system
Retrieval: four steps
•
•
•
•
Connect to Napster server
Upload your list of files (push) to server.
Give server keywords to search the full list with.
Select “best” of correct answers. (pings)
centralized server: single logical point of failure, can
load balance among servers using DNS rotation,
potential for congestion
no security: passwords in plain text, no authentication,
no anonymity
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Napster: How it works?(1)
1. File list is
uploaded
napster.com
users
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Napster: How it works?(2)
2.
napster.com
User
requests
search at
server.
Request
and
results
user
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Napster: How it works?(3)
3.
napster.com
User pings
hosts that
apparently
have data.
Looks for
best transfer
rate.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
pings
pings
user
Napster: How it works?(4)
napster.com
4. User
retrieves file
Retrieves
file
user
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Advantages and Disadvantages
of Hybrid Decentralized Systems


Advantages
•
•
Easy to implement
Locate files quickly and efficiently
Disadvantages
•
•
Vulnerable to censorship, legal action, surveillance,
malicious attack, and technical failure
Considered inherently unscalable as they are bound to
be limitations to the size of the server database and its
capacity to respond to queries.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Partially Centralized
Architectures




use the concept of supernodes: nodes that are
dynamically assigned the task of servicing a small
subpart of the peer network by indexing and caching
files contained therein.
Peers are automatically elected to become
supernodes if they have sufficient bandwidth and
processing power.
Supernodes index the files shared by peers
connected to them, and proxy search requests on
behalf of these peers.
All queries are therefore initially directed to
supernodes.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Partially Centralized Systems



Kazaa and Morpheus are two similar partially
centralized systems which use the concept of
“SuperNodes”.
In Morpheus a central server provides new peers with a
list of one or more Supernodes with which they can
connect. SuperNodes index the files shared by peers
connected to them, and proxy search requestes on
behalf of these peers. Queries are therefore sent to
SuperNodes, not to other peers.
Recent version of the Gnutella protocol.
•
A mechanism for dynamically selecting supernodes
organizes the Gnutella network into an interconnection of
superpeers (as they are referred to) and client nodes.When
a node with enough CPU power joins the network, it
immediately becomes a superpeer and establishes
connections with other superpeers, forming a flat
unstructured network of superpeers. If it establishes a
minimum required number of connections to client nodes
within a specified time, it remains a superpeer. Otherwise it
turns into a regular client node.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Advantages of Partially
Decentralized Systems

Advantages
•
•
•
•
In comparison with purely decentralized systems, discovery time
and the traffic on messages exchanging between nodes are
reduced
In comparison with Hybrid Decentralized Systems, workload on
central server are reduced, but with slower information discovery
The inherent heterogeneity of peer-to-peer networks is
taken advantage of and exploited
no unique point of failure
•
•
If one or more supernodes go down, the nodes connected to them
can open new connections with other supernodes, and the network will
continue to operate.
Peers can become supernodes themselves even when all supernodes
go down
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Discovery Mechanisms for P2P
systems


Distributed peer-to-peer systems often require
a discovery mechanism to locate specific data
within the system.
P2P systems have evolved from first
generation centralized structures to second
generation flooding-based and then third
generation systems based on distributed hash
tables:
•
•
•
Centralized indexes and repositories
Flooding broadcast of queries
Routing Model
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Centralized Indexes and
Repositories



Used in hybrid system
peers of the community connect to a
centralized directory servers, which store all
information regarding location and usage of
resources
A central directory server maintains:
•
•
•
an index with meta data (file name, time of creation
etc.) of all files in the network
a table of registered user connection information (IP
addresses, connection speeds etc.)
a table listing the files that each user holds and
shares in the network
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Flooding broadcast of queries

Simple and robust

Effective and of low latency

Fundamental Operation for
• No state maintenance needed
• High tolerance to node failures
• Always find the shortest/fastest routing paths
• Broadcasting in distributed systems
• P2P communications
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Problems of Flooding

Loops in Gnutella networks

Current solution by Gnutella

Unnecessary traffic is till too much
• Caused by redundant links
• Result in endless message routing
• Detect and discard redundant messages
• Limit TTL(time-to-live) of messages
• The redundant links are still there
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Routing Model



Adds structure to the way information
about resources are stored using
distributed hash table
Provides a mapping between the
resource identifier and location
Reduces the number of p2p hops that
must be taken to locate a resource
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Chord




Provides peer-to-peer hash lookup service:
• Lookup(key)  IP address
• Chord does not store the data
Efficient: O(Log N) messages per lookup
• N is the total number of servers
Scalable: O(Log N) state per node
Robust: survives massive changes in
membership
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Chord: Lookup Mechanism
N5
N10
N110
N20 K19
N99
N32 Lookup(K19)
N80
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
N60
Freenet


CMSC 621, Fall 2007
The query is forwarded
from node to node using
the routing table, until it
reaches the node which
has the requested data.
The replay is passed
back to the original node
following the reverse
path.
Pastry



Completely decentralized, scalable, and selforganizing; it automatically adapts to the
arrival, departure and failure of nodes.
Seeks to minimize the distance messages
travel, according to a scalar proximity metric
like the number of IP routing hops.
In a Pastry network,
•
•
Each node has a unique id, nodeId.
Presented with a message & a key, Pastry node
efficiently routes the message to the node with a
nodeId that is numerically closest to the key.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
CAN (Content Addressable
Network)




The network is created in a tree-like form.
Each node is associated to one in the upper
level an to a group in the lower level.
A query travels from the uppermost level down
through the network until a match is found or
until it reaches the lowermost level.
For its query model, scalability is an issue.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Tapestry


Self-administered, self-organized, location
independent, scalable, fault-tolerant
Each node has a neighbor map table with
neighbor information.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Tapestry Cont.


The system is able to adapt to network
changes because it algorithms are dynamic.
This also provides for Fault-handling
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
When to consider unstructured
P2P systems




The placement of content (files) is completely unrelated to the overlay
topology.
In an unstructured network, content typically needs to be located.
Searching mechanisms range from brute force methods such as
flooding the network with propagating queries in a breadth-first or
depth-first manner until the desired content is located, to more
sophisticated and resource-preserving strategies that include the use
of random walks and routing indices. The searching mechanisms
employed in unstructured networks have obvious implications,
particularly in regards to matters of availability, scalability, and
persistence.
Unstructured systems are generally more appropriate for
accommodating highly transient node populations.
Some representative examples of unstructured systems are Napster,
Publius, Gnutella, Kazaa and Freehaven, et.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
When to consider Structured
P2Psystems




In structured networks the overlay topology is tightly controlled and
files (or pointers to them) are placed at precisely specified locations.
These systems essentially provide a mapping between content (e.g.
file identifier) and location (e.g. node address), in the form of a
distributed routing table, so that queries can be efficiently routed to the
node with the desired content.
Structured systems offer a scalable solution for exact-match queries,
i.e. queries in which the exact identifier of the requested data object is
known (as compared to keyword queries). Using exact-match queries
as a substrate for keyword queries remains an open research problem
for distributed environments
A disadvantage of structured systems is that it is hard to maintain the
structure required for efficiently routing messages in the face of a very
transient node population, in which nodes are joining and leaving at a
high rate.
Typical examples of structured systems include Chord, CAN, Tapestry
et cetera.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Conclusion
This table shows a classification of peer-to-peer content distribution
systems and location and routing infrastructures in terms of their
Network structure, with some typical examples.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
References






B. Pourebrahimi, K. bertels and S. Vassiliadis. A survey of Peer-toPeer
Networks, http://ce.et.tudelft.nl/publicationfiles/1075_526_prorisc05.pdf
Ion Stoica, Robert morris, david Karger, M. Frans Kaashoek and Hari
Balakrishnan. Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-Peer Lookup Service for Internet
Applications,
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/chord:sigcomm01/chord_sigcomm.pdf
Ismail Guvenc and Juan Jose Urdaneta. Peer to Peer File Sharing: A Survey,
www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall02/cs597C/P2P/p2psurvey.ppt
Nelson Mina. Distributed Systems Topologies: Part 1,
http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2001/12/14/topologies_one.html
Peer-to-Peer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Applications_of_peer-topeer_networks
Stephanos Androutsellis-Theotokis and Diomidis Spinellis. A survey of peer-topeer content distribution technologies. ACM Computing Surveys, 36(4):335–
371, December 2004.
CMSC 621, Fall 2007
Questions?
CMSC 621, Fall 2007